TO TEACH A GENERATION HOW TO WORSHIP: A CASE FOR CHILDREN IN CORPORATE WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

TO TEACH A GENERATION HOW TO WORSHIP: A CASE FOR CHILDREN IN CORPORATE WORSHIP

            Nearly every minister who is involved in the worship leadership in any capacity has or will come across the issue of what to do with children during gatherings. Various churches employ disparate measures with their children including but not limited to having separate children’s worship services, having special children’s messages during corporate worship, or simply allowing them to worship with everyone else in the fellowship. In my years of encountering this issue, my opinion has changed, for where I used to support separating children from adults so as not to be a distraction, I now firmly and fully support keeping kids in the worship space with adults. My reason for this shift lies in this rhetorical question: how will children learn to worship if not from older generations in their lives, especially their parents. I openly admit that not everyone enjoys being around kids or is even good with kids; there is nothing wrong with that so no one should make such people feel as though they are wrong for their discomfort with children. Nonetheless, everyone in the body of Christ is given the obligation to model proper worship to a younger generation. I intend here then to make a case for keeping children in corporate worship rather than separating them. In doing so, I will provide four foundations for children in worship.

When a Congregation Is Seen, the Church Should Be Seen

            There are no age limitations in the body of Christ. Contained in the church are both extremes of young and old and everything in the middle. A local church then should be representative of such a truth. If one were to look across a congregation from a platform on a given Sunday, what should be seen is the entire church, not just adults. The situation should not seem as if the adults of a local church are willing and ready to dismiss the children so that they can move to bigger and better things. The body of Christ is not compartmentalized but rather is one body; we are one church with “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:5-6)

Western society tends to do a terrible job of representing the church of Jesus Christ because we compartmentalize, e.g. the youth ministry seems to be separated from the rest of the church; the children’s ministry seems to be separated and often in an eager manner as if adults cannot wait to get rid of the children; and seniors are often given the boot because they outgoing from this life. Ironically, the two generations that need each other the most are the seniors and the children. Why then do we separate and compartmentalize generations in our churches? I am not referring to the practicality of having age-driven ministries in churches. Nevertheless, there is a fine line between age-driven ministries and (nearly) total separation. Even in an age-graded approach, ministries should be derived from the local church, not a separate entity itself. Each Christian in a local church is a member of the entire body and should be treated and viewed as such.

Education Is Not a Government or Church Responsibility but a Parental Responsibility; This Includes Worship Training

            The topic of children in worship crosses into not only theology for me but also culture, for we live in a society that gladly passes the responsibility of education to the government; yet, both biblically and constitutionally, government is never given the responsibility of education.[1] Any time Scripture speaks of training a child, the responsibility is always placed on the parents, not even the church. It is a parental responsibility to make sure that a child becomes a productive adult, which might surely look different depending on the context.

The Apostle Paul instructs fathers to bring children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). We are told that alien children who hear of the Lord will know and fear him in Israel (Deut 31:12-13). The psalmist says that God established a testimony in Jacob and established a law in Israel, which he commanded fathers to teach their children (Ps 78:5). Moreover, Scripture speaks of the joy that a parent has in knowing that their children walk in the ways of the Lord (3 John 1:4).

The responsibility to train, educate, and teach is given to the parents here, not the government. A parent might seek a partner in education, e.g. a public or private school; they should, however, assure themselves that they have a right and good partner because the responsibility to educate their children falls on them.

            Too often, parents pass their kids to schools or even to the church for their education. Far more important than academic education is biblical education. Parents should prioritize teaching their children the holy ways of God, which is why a parent should not ground their kids from church gatherings.

            This concept is related to corporate worship because it is also a parental responsibility to train children in worship practices. The primary example a child should have of a worshiper of God is his or her parents. If we separate children from their parents in worship, they will not experience that personal example of how to worship modeled in their parents. God’s people should take their responsibility of educating their children seriously and allow kids to learn to worship alongside (not separated from) parents.

Family Worship Is the Biblical Model

            Family worship is the biblical model in two ways: 1) the church is a family of adopted children of God, and 2) God has placed an important and strategic role on parents to give spiritual direction in their children’s lives, which includes direction in corporate worship. While I am not an advocate of infant baptism, many who argue for it might reference Acts 8:12 or Acts 18:8 as evidence that entire families were baptized together including children and perhaps infants. That might be a stretch; yet, something I gather from these texts is the concept of family worship. The responsibility of spiritual leadership has been placed on parents; the greatest example of godliness a child should have is his or her parents; and surely, the greatest example of worshipers of God a child should have is his or her parents. Family worship then is the biblical model.

            I do not, however, imply a problem with singleness. In fact, Scripture teaches that singleness is better (1 Cor 7:8). Not everyone is called to singleness so there is nothing wrong with either. Nonetheless, the church ought not to neglect the single person, for single men and women of God also have the responsibility of modeling proper worship for younger generations. We do not know who is watching us. While the ultimate task of godly leadership has been handed to parents, single and married people alike should be model worshipers of Jesus Christ. The church is truly one large family, transcendent through the ages and comprised of many families and single believers. Family worship is the biblical model.

The Gospel Should Not Be Dumbed Down

            We too often try to dumb down the gospel in a feeble effort to help people understand it; this is especially true of how we often teach children. The gospel, however, does not need to be dumbed down; nor, should it be. Someone recently asked me if the gospel is simple or profound and convoluted; my answer was that it is both. St. Jerome (347 AD – 420 AD) expressed, “The scriptures are shallow enough for a babe to come and drink without fear of drowning and deep enough for a theologian to swim in without ever touching the bottom.”[2] As people of God (and especially ministers of God whether vocationally or not), we should not shoot for the lowest common denominator, i.e. children can certainly understand the simplicities of the gospel but will not understand the complexities of the gospel if it is not given to them by the Holy Spirit through our teaching. If we continue to compartmentalize and separate generations and thus prevent them from worshiping together, we will continue to reap shallow and superficial Christians. There is a reason Jesus said, “Let the children come to me.” (Mark 10:14) He was not implying that we should dumb down the gospel; rather, children should come to the gospel who is Jesus and all of it, not merely in part. To accomplish this, all of God’s people should worship together.

Let Us Stop Seeking Entertainment and Start Seeking God in Worship

            I believe that significant reason adults are often so eager to separate themselves from children and youth in worship is an entertainment-minded attitude, i.e. the attitude suggests, “Let us get rid of the children so that we can move to real adult worship. What they do is their own business, but they do not belong here with us.” Nevertheless (and often subconsciously), such an attitude is founded on a desire to be served rather than to serve and to be entertained rather than worship. When we realize that worship is work rather than relaxation, our hearts, minds, and attitudes, should shift to seeking God’s glory in the entire body of Christ. For that reason, let us be faithful worshipers of God by fostering opportunities for the entire local church to worship together. Do not dismiss any generation, young or old. When the church worships God, the entire church should worship God, not merely a portion of the local church. This is the case for children participating in corporate worship.

---

[1] I speak here of the US Constitution, for certainly, many state constitutions discuss education as a governmental responsibility.

[2] “St. Jerome,” Quotable Quotes, Good Reads, accessed October 26, 2018, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/940101-the-scriptures-are-shallow-enough-for-a-babe-to-come.

A SEEMINGLY SLOW DEATH: THE INCREASING NEGLECT OF CONGREGATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

A SEEMINGLY SLOW DEATH: THE INCREASING NEGLECT OF CONGREGATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN WORSHIP

            In a consumerist society, the Christian subculture has most certainly been affected. I confess, as a minister, that it is difficult to keep society from affecting at least some of the practices of the church, though often, we should strive for such a goal. One of the effects of consumerism (I think) is the neglect of congregational participation in worship. Recently, I visited a local church and noticed not just a few but many people entering the doors late, texting while entering, drinking coffee, and sitting in a casual position as if to be entertained. Those actions are not evil in and of themselves. Nonetheless, they could be indicative of a greater issue: a hedonistic attitude. John Piper has effectively turned the word, hedonism, into a good thing for the glory of Christ, i.e. it is okay to be a hedonist if we seek our pleasure through the satisfaction found only in God. That is not that to which I am referring here.

            Let us separate the good of political and societal individuality from the negative impacts of individuality in the church. While God has made us and loved us as individuals, 1) we are part of a larger body, and 2) we should not seek our own desires but first and foremost the desires of God and then the desires of others. The self-seeking attitude to which I refer is largely responsible for a negation of congregational participation in worship. Rather than seeking what one can do for the church, often, people seek what the church can do for them, which has contributed to churches craving entertainment.

            Worship, in its nature, is participatory since the corporate body is involved. Rather than seeking entertainment and self-satisfaction (except in Christ), we should strive to participate in the worship of God. It is not as though we have anything of worth to give God; yet, he gladly accepts our offerings of worship and works in us to conform us to his image. I intend to provide three foundations for congregational participation here: a biblical foundation, a theological foundation, and a historical foundation. My aim is that God’s people realize the importance of participation found in the fact that the local church offers worship to God, not just the leaders.

Biblical Foundation

            Scripture is replete with images of the local church worshiping together through praising, encouraging, admonishing, singing, praying, etc. The idea is that God gathers his people together to worship him. We are commanded to admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col 3:16) and not to neglect meeting together (Heb 10:25). Moreover, we are to devote ourselves to teaching and fellowship as the early church did (Acts 2:42) and to sing joyfully to the Lord (Psalm 95). The Psalms are often considered to be the hymnal of Israel, God’s chosen people who were not to forsake worshiping God together. In these images, it is apparent that the entire congregation is to participate; no one is left from these instructions.

            The neglect of congregational participation is obvious in manifold ways, e.g. a casual attitude among congregants who sit drinking coffee while the leaders try to lead people in singing to the Lord, those standing with hands in their pockets and refusing to sing, congregants arriving late while knowing what time corporate worship in the local church begins. These attitudes are often carried into other areas as well. Having served in multiple local churches, I understand the frustrations with complaints the staff receives: complaints which usually center around dissatisfaction about what the church is doing for the one complaining. Often, the songs we sing speak solely about what God has done for me personally. I do not intend to criticize the beauty of expressing personal gratitude for what God has done for me. In fact, it is right to do so. I will, however, suggest that the overemphasis of such a theme is perhaps descended from a self-gratifying society. God is worthy to be worshiped irrespective of whether he does anything for us at all. Worship declares who God is and tells his story. Why then do we spend more time telling our story, i.e. why do we overemphasize what God has done for us over who he is? “Christian songwriters, let us write songs that glorify what Christ has done and acknowledge that we receive it, not songs that acknowledge what Christ has done and glorify our reception of it.”[1]

Seemingly, many local churches possess an attitude that implies, “God, what have you done for me lately?” This is a consumerist attitude, which is rampant in modern (and particularly western) society and has crept into the subculture of the church. There is a direct link then between consumerism and a lack of participation. When we consume rather than give, participation lessens. The Psalms present a beautiful model of worship content. Whether a psalm of thanksgiving, praise, or even imprecation, God is glorified. The model we see in Psalms is an abundance of content about the splendor of God and who he is and a smaller fraction of content about what he has done for his people or the supplications and even complaints of his people. The entire Bible centers around God as the focal point of the gospel, not humankind, contrary to what many might suppose. It is, however, God’s people throughout Scripture who offer him continuous praise. Jesus makes clear that if people do not cry out in praise to him, the rocks will (Luke 19:40). We are the adopted people of God. Paul expresses that we eagerly wait for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23) but that creation also groans together in the pains of childbirth (Rom 8:22). Nevertheless, the longing to worship God is not born solely from gratitude but rather from an understanding of who he is. Consider this: when we preach the gospel as witnesses of Christ, our primary purpose should not be the salvation of others except that they see the glory and splendor of God and are changed by him, not what he has done for them. How then can we, as the redeemed people of God who have tasted and seen, be silent? Worship is participatory and rightfully so.

Theological Foundation

            Furthermore, supporting my thesis that congregational participation should not be neglected, there exists a theological foundation, which is manifested in three ways: 1) the representative body of Christ, 2) the spirituality of a local church, and 3) satisfaction in Christ.

            First, the church is a singular body comprised of many members (1 Cor 12). Thus, corporate worship should not be carried out only by individuals but rather by an entire local church, i.e. if there subsists a lack of participation, it could be indicative of a deeper issue such as a hindrance to the exemplification of unity, an entertainment mentality, or a consumerist culture (perhaps even perpetuated by the local church herself).[2] If a congregation lacks participation, there is not an accurate representation of the body of Christ where each person plays a role.

We should understand, nevertheless, that the obligation of participation is distributed among two parties: leaders and congregants. Leaders should strive to cultivate pragmatic avenues for congregational participation, i.e. if a leader does not allow opportunities for the congregation to be involved in all facets, e.g. Scripture readings, prayers, etc., he or she contributes to the cultural lack of participation. Concert-like atmospheres in local churches might be an example of such a situation. Congregants also possess a responsibility. Irrespective of the quality of leadership or comfort of the worship space, congregants should realize their own responsibility to participate in giving worship to God, not to sit, listen, and be entertained. The local church is comprised of many members; each member plays a vital role in corporate worship. Realizing this crucial aspect should cause us to willingly participate in worship no matter the external circumstances.

Secondly, I suggest that there is a direct tie to a local church’s spirituality and their participation (or lack thereof). If you would like to know a church’s spiritual maturity, observe their worship practices. Even beyond participation, how important is the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and the full counsel of God? These can be indicative of a church’s spiritual maturity. Yet, a lack of participation might signify a church that consumes rather than one that contributes. As individuals and as churches, you either consume or contribute. God is worthy of more than what we can contribute. Nonetheless, he accepts our offerings of worship as pleasing to him. Let us be participating worshipers.

Lastly, a church’s level of participation reveals their satisfaction in Christ. Those who are satisfied in Christ seemingly have no option but to worship in a participatory manner, for as David cries, they yearn for the living God (Ps 63:1). There is no consumerist mindset for one satisfied in Christ, for such a person seeks pleasure by pleasing God, i.e. worship is not about how God can bless us but how we can bless him. It would be a lie to claim that he has not already blessed us or that he will not continue to bless us; yet, our call, in worship, is to bless him by declaring him. Worship is not about or for humankind but about and for triune God. If we are satisfied in Christ, his glory and his renown are manifested in our very lives and in our worship participation because of a natural desire to please him. The theological foundation here is that participation in corporate worship is linked stalwartly to spiritual depth. For that reason then, we should be people who participate in worship rather than people who consume entertainment.

Historical Foundation

            Martin Luther espoused worship and teaching in the vernacular language. He expressed:

One may not ask the Latin language how to speak German…one must ask mothers in the home, children on the street, the common man at the market, and watch carefully how they speak. After that one may translate. Then those who read will understand you and know that you are speaking German with them.[3]

For Luther, the issue of vernacular language, however, reached beyond understanding and into participation. Christian worship prior to the Reformation involved little to no congregational participation. Not only was the Mass employed in Latin, only clergy was permitted to speak or sing. Luther and other reformers changed this from a firm belief in the participation of the entire local church in worship.

Even the early and Patristic church leaves little room for doubt that Christians were fervently participatory in worship. No aspect of corporate worship was taken for granted, e.g. the kiss of peace was a vital part of worship, as was the weekly celebration of the Eucharist. These elements of worship were not to be observed but rather there in which to be participated. Note that music is not the sole form of participation. Worship leaders often fail their local churches by only allowing participation in music rather than other elements. Seeking creative ways to employ sacred acts aids in a corporate offering of worship to God. History supports corporate participation in worship; we should then be faithful worshipers and leaders in a participatory manner.

Consumerism: The Antithesis of Worship

            Consumerism is not only creeping into the life of the church; it is, in fact, alive and well in the Christian subculture. Consumerism is, however, the opposite of what God has designed and what he desires. God is worthy of worship in a corporate fashion. If we consume and seek entertainment value or continuously consider what the church has done for us lately, we fall into the dangerous trap of human-driven worship, which is not worship at all. In our corporate worship experiences, there is but one consumer: God himself. Surely, he works in our midst as we worship. Yet, he is the one who receives worship; he is both the object and subject; and he is the one to whom we give worship. For proper worship to occur, the mentality of many local churches must shift. Where progressive music, technology, and techniques have been employed to relate to a culture and create and atmosphere which yields participation, the opposite effect has occurred; congregational participation is dying a slow death. We now must strive to change not the method but the heart. People should realize their call and obligation to give to God, not only receive from him, for worship is about him, not us.

---

[1] Social media quote by Josh Lavender.

[2] There certainly could be pragmatic issues in a local church such as music which is too loud or a lack of quality among leaders; I suggest, however, that there is more than likely a spiritual issue at the core of what is happening when there is lack of participation.

[3] WA 30, II, 637.

HORIZONTAL COMMUNITY, NOT JUST VERTICAL WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

HORIZONTAL COMMUNITY, NOT JUST VERTICAL WORSHIP

            A growing concept, in recent decades, is that of vertical worship, i.e. worship occurs solely as a dialogue between God and individual worshiping. I do not deny that worship is vertical; nonetheless, it is not solely vertical, for there is also a horizontal aspect. By horizontal, I do not mean that God’s people worship each other or other earthly things; contrarily, I mean that the church corporately worships triune God. In fact, God has covenanted with a people more obviously than with individuals. While individuals comprise the body of Christ, the church exists as one body. The connection between worship and mission, corporate and personal happens in the sending; when the church is sent from the corporate worship gathering, God’s people begin a process of personal worship together. Thus, even in personal worship, there is a corporate aspect. To neglect the horizontal relationships shared between the people of God is to effectively become absorbed in self-seeking goals. Worship, however, is not self-seeking but looks first to the glory of God and second to the good of others. If worship were solely vertical, the ordinances would not only be corporate; therefore, private communion is not Communion at all; there is surely a horizontal obligation in worship. So as not to deny the vertical aspect of worship, for the following, I will assume the truth of vertical worship while concurrently providing a foundation for horizontal worship.

Worship Is Horizontal Because God Has Covenanted with a People Rather than Mere Individuals

            First, to argue that worship is simultaneously vertical and horizontal and not to neglect the horizontal aspect, I submit that God has covenanted with a people rather than mere individuals. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul discusses the redeemed people of God as many members of one body; yet, the emphasis is placed on one body more than many members, i.e. the body takes precedence over the individual members. Sarcastic and rhetorical pictures of body parts personified and speaking to other members of the body in their own will are indicative of the overall purpose of the body rather than individual members. In our self-absorption, we often speak of God’s will as it applies solely to our lives. Nonetheless, God does not have only a will for our lives but a will at-large which glorifies himself and brings him pleasure and a will into which each person in the covenanted body of Christ fits.

            In Exodus 2, God hears the cries of his people and responds to bring them out of the bondage of slavery. “…God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant…God saw the people of Israel – and God knew.” (Exod 2:24-25) The focal point of God’s response here is his covenant; he responded to his covenant, not purely the cries of his people. The various covenants of old between God and Abraham, Moses, David, and others were ultimately an extension of the overarching covenant of grace between himself and his people which was made permanent and perfect through the new covenant in Jesus Christ. The covenant, however, is with a people, not individuals.

            No child of God is born as a child of God but is rather adopted (Rom 8:15). As adopted people then, God has given us a part in his body. The link between this truth and worship then is that we worship not only as individuals but also (and even more) as a corporate body. Throughout Scripture, we are referred to in a plural sense but also as a singular body. We are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession.” (1 Pet 2:9) By God’s covenant with his people, we worship as a body, not solely as individuals. In this manner then, worship is not only vertical but horizontal. Picture a global redeemed people of God, the church, worshiping triune God. We might visually think of God’s people dialoging vertically; nevertheless, the body worshiping and proclaiming the story of God exists as a vertical body, i.e. the church is comprised of many people who form one living organism. God has covenanted with a people, not merely individuals. The worship we give triune God then is given together. We live together; we love together; we function together; and we worship together as the body of Christ.

Worship Is Horizontal Because It Declares the Gospel to Others

            My second argument for seeing worship through not only a vertical but also a horizontal lens is that worship declares the gospel to others. The tendency might be to consider the proclamation of the gospel for only those who do not know Christ; yet, the gospel should be proclaimed to everyone including those who already have a personal relationship with the Savior. The gospel should be proclaimed to the lost and continue being proclaimed to the church because it has not only been life-changing for God’s people but continues to be life-changing. Christians have repented but should continue repenting and need the gospel to do so.

            A constant declaration of the gospel should not be confused with seeker-sensitive worship if such a thing exists. God is the point of the gospel and is, in fact, the gospel himself. In declaring the gospel then, the church declares God. The gospel does not point first to the redemption of humankind but rather to the glory, fame, majesty, and worth of triune God, from which humankind’s redemption is derived. Surely, there is an evangelistic theme and aspect to worship by nature; yet, it is not seeker-sensitive. The point here is that the church worships to give glory to God by proclaiming his story. Worship declares the gospel not only to God but also to others, i.e. we continually declare the gospel to each other in corporate worship. Therefore, it is okay to sing songs about God as well as to him. If we desire to only sing to God, we have both missed the point and limited worship solely to music. A sermon or homily, for example, is also worship; yet, they are not preached to God but about him to God’s people. Worship declares the glory of God and proclaims the gospel message, through which God’s people are changed. The horizontal aspect here then is God’s people declaring the gospel to each other.

Worship Is Horizontal Because the Holy Spirit’s Work Is Horizontal

            The Holy Spirit’s work is fundamental to worship, for it is only in the power of the Spirit that God’s people approach the Father mediated through the Son. While God is the object of worship, we would be mistaken to consider ourselves as the subject, i.e. the one(s) at work. God is both object and subject; he is the one whom we worship and the one who works in our midst. In the triune Godhead, the Holy Spirit works among the people of God; thus, his work is horizontal. Preceded only by his love for both the Son and the Father, the Holy Spirit works in the church and out of love for her.

            The Holy Spirit is likely the most neglected person of the Godhead; yet, we must strive to change this. To ignore the doctrine of the Trinity (including the Holy Spirit) or to claim such a doctrine cannot be explained is a copout. Worship is triune in nature. God is triune and eternally exists as the Godhead, three in one: no hierarchy and no division but three distinct persons, co-equal and co-eternal with each other. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one with each other and equally worthy of worship. Neither is created, and all are equal in power and glory yet function in disparate manners in a specific Godhead order. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father. Yet, the Father is God; the Son is God; the Spirit is God; and all three persons eternally exist as one with each other. All three persons of the Trinity operate in a love relationship with one another yet as one God. The Father, out of love for the Son, has bequeathed a people to his Son; the Son, begotten of the Father as incarnate word and out of love for the Father has redeemed the people given to him through his death, burial, resurrection, and eventual return; the Spirit, eternally proceeding from both the Father and the Son (John 14:16, 16:7) and out of love for the Father and the Son, calls, guides, and convicts the redeemed people of God; through the distinct work of all three persons then, triune God is glorified. The church worships and lives in the power of the Holy Spirit, through Christ the mediator, to the glory of God the Father. One in love, glory, and power, a specific Godhead order is designed for the overarching and governing purpose of worship, namely the glory of God. One God, three distinct persons, God ordains all things, and in all things, the three persons of the Trinity, in love for one another, function to the glory of the triune God.

God is not distantly observing the worship from his people but instead is among and working in the bride of Christ, particularly through the work of the Spirit. If we focus solely on our individual selves without realizing God’s work among his people as a body, we fail to see not only the horizontal relationship and offering of love given by the church but also the work of the Holy Spirit among God’s people as a single unified body. God’s work is not merely in and for individuals but rather his own purposes manifested and carried out through the church. While it might be tempting to seek God’s will for our lives individually, we should understand that God has a supreme will, into which we individually fit. The Holy Spirit’s work then is among the people of God, not merely individual believers. Worship is not only vertical but also horizontal because the Holy Spirit’s work among the people of God is horizontal.

Worship Is Horizontal Because the Church Is the Body of Christ

            The body of Christ is most naturally a horizontal body, i.e. the church is comprised of relationships not only with and in Christ but also with each other. The church does not merely represent the body of Christ but literally is the body of Christ; we are his hands and feet (1 Cor 12:27). Perpetually unified in Jesus, the church possesses the sole ability and right to worship God; yet, it happens as a body, not as mere individuals.

            I submit that (corporate) worship forms people as individuals. Personal worship then is derived from corporate worship; the way people worship becomes the way they live their lives. In a cyclic manner, the church worships corporately and are, thus, formed individually as a part of the body of Christ and then glorify God together as a single unified body. Horizontal worship then lends itself to vertical worship presented to God by the church. Even in personal worship, God’s people (together) present their lives. In this manner, Christians do not go to church but are the church and the body and bride of Christ.

It Is about Horizontal Relationships

            It is not intended for us to live life alone; God has created us with individual purposes, subsequent to his governing purpose, namely his own glory. The church is a single unified body and worships as a single body. The key to unity is Jesus Christ and the shalom relationship which exists as a result. The church is a horizontal body comprised of horizontal relationships among the adopted people of God. Worship then is not solely vertical. In Christ Jesus, the horizontal nature of worship is evident. We must be faithful worshipers who do not neglect the horizontal; we must be people who understand that we do not go to church as if it is a place but (collectively) are the church.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EAR: VERNACULAR JARGON'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ETHOS OF WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EAR: VERNACULAR JARGON’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ETHOS OF WORSHIP

            The ethos of the modern church, particularly in western society, seemingly involves a catering to the culture for a plurality of underlying reasons. The strong belief in the use of vernacular language stemming from the Reformation era has drastically changed in its purpose. Where Reformers desired for communities of God’s people to possess the ability to worship in their own language and, thus, experience a greater effect in life-change, the tendency of modern churches’ use of vernacular language appears to be founded upon the desires of people (lost or saved) rather than the worship of God.

            I will discuss vernacular jargon, specifically lingo, and its contribution to the ethos of worship in modern society. Worship leaders often see themselves as indirect theologians and theological teachers when instead the view should foster teaching in a direct manner, i.e. worship leaders should be intentional and purposeful with the lingo they choose to use. Lingo teaches ideas, concepts, and even theologies whether realized or not. One can certainly say, “Well, they know what I mean.” I would, however, respond with, “Do they?” When worship leaders use terms such as stage and setlist, many people’s minds automatically create an association with worship. Since a worship leader’s context is the local church (not a concert setting), jargon such as stage and setlist is naturally associated with worship, although it should not be, which is why leaders should be careful to be intentional, pointed, and clear with the lingo used. Every single word used in the context of corporate worship (quite literally) has an either intended or unintended implication.

            I suggest here that lingo has become one of the most neglected aspects of corporate worship. Even Reformation era theologians, in their desire to cultivate communities of worship through understandable language,[1] had, at the center, a desire to worship God rather than to cater to societal norms. Lingo then is more than meets the ear. In fact, what is heard is surface level; what is experienced and internalized both mentally and emotionally is at the root of the issue. Lingo should not be neglected. We should not shift back to language which is difficult to understand; yet, those who lead the church in worship should take seriously their call to cultivate worshipers of God, not merely congregants who understand theological concepts, albeit in an inaccurate frame. Lingo, therefore, should not be neglected, negated, or de-emphasized but rather intentional.

Lingo Has Unintentional Implications that Should Be Intentional

            The underpinning of the issue is not necessarily lingo itself but the lack of intentionality behind it. I have personally had worship leaders tell me that they are not theological teachers. Realize it or not, worship leaders teach theology. Many people think of theology as deep and profound topics about God; yet, theology can be simple. When someone tells a child that Jesus loves him or her and the Bible says so, they are teaching theology. Similarly, when a worship leader sings, “Hallelujah! All I have is Christ,” they are teaching theology. Theological teaching happens week in and week out, day in and day out, often without realizing it. The issue, however, is that we should realize it.

            Throughout church history, much theology has been derived from congregational music, particularly in eras and societies where illiteracy was rampant. Music then became not only a mode of worship but also a tool for theological instruction. Western society is largely literate; nevertheless, the music and lingo used in worship teach believers theological concepts and ideas, right or wrong. Worship leaders should realize this aspect of ministry and strive then for intentionality.

            The copout argument is that much of what people criticize is semantics. I usually push back on such a suggestion, however, because of an intentional attitude geared toward proper teaching. Even the most miniscule difference in language can have a profound impact. For example, one has a choice to teach that people either receive Christ or accept Christ. I do not intend to argue for one or the other here (although I have an opinion on this phrase) but rather to point to the difference between the two. Depending on your theological persuasion, you should likely choose one word or the other. A semantics argument would suggest that the two words possess the same meaning; deliberation, however, would realize that there is not only a subtle but a vast difference.

Many worship leaders do not understand the effect lingo has on those to whom they minister. The effect, however, is present whether intended or not; it is inevitable. A semantics argument often lends itself to apathetic lingo. Scripture commands Christians to constantly be prepared to give a defense of the faith (1 Pet 3:25). Additionally, we are commanded to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). If the glory of God is the pointed goal of all we do, why would we not strive for excellence in all areas of life and especially in the lingo used in corporate worship? To write off lingo is to effectively write off our call to excellence as believers.

A lackadaisical attitude has yielded an overarching neglect of lingo in the church. Certainly, lingo should be understandable, accessible, and contextual; nonetheless, lingo should not be unintentional. Upon the basis of the unescapable effect of lingo, worship leaders have a choice to either steer that effect with intentionality or risk improper teaching with unintentionality. To be faithful to the call is to be faithful to the message and treat it with utmost respect and reverence.

Lingo Matters Because Scripture Matters

            God was pointed and intentional in inspiring the text of Scripture. Original language texts are intentional; scribal editions are intentional; and modern vernacular translations are intentional. Why then would we not be intentional with the lingo we use in corporate worship? We should not dare say that the text of the Bible is comprised of merely semantics-based concepts. Either Scripture is the inspired word of God or it is not. If the Bible is truly inspired by triune God, then every word matters. Worship leaders should teach the same truths as presented in the Bible. Since every single word of Scripture should be scrutinized and treated with greatest care, why should we not manage lingo with the same care? Lingo is a tool to teach the authoritative message of the gospel found in Scripture. Therefore, lingo matters because Scripture matters.

            Throughout the centuries, scribes, translators, ministers, and teachers have been diligent to reverently and carefully submit the gospel message of the Bible to the church. Feeble attempts to stamp out Christianity have been made throughout history. Persecution in the early church simply allowed Christianity to disperse to other parts of the world. Before Constantine (306-336 AD), Diocletian (244-312 AD), tried to rid the world of the Bible even decreeing that if someone was found with one copy of the word of God, they would be killed. When Constantine became a Christian, he offered a financial reward for copies of the Bible, and within a day, fifty copies were brought to him, thus the word of God continued.[2]

Voltaire, the noted French infidel, who died in 1778, made his attempt to destroy the Bible. He boldly made the prediction that within one hundred years the Bible and Christianity would have been swept from existence into oblivion. But Voltaire's efforts and his bold prophecy failed as miserably as did those of his unbelieving predecessors. In fact, within 100 years, the very printing press upon which Voltaire used…was being used to print copies of the Bible. And afterward, the very house in which the boasting Voltaire had lived, was literally stacked with Bibles prepared by the Geneva Bible Society. Voltaire…had miserably failed.[3]

If Scripture matters this much, why should our methods of teaching Scripture not matter as much? The Bible is not just semantics; why then would the lingo we use be merely semantics? If the gospel message matters, lingo matters; if Scripture matters, lingo matters.

To Declare the Full Counsel of God, Even Vernacular Lingo Must Be Accurate

            Worship leaders must remember the underlying reason for vernacular language: so that the full counsel of God might be declared and understood in the church. Vernacular language and lingo should not exist for the sole purpose of colloquial understanding, appearing to be in touch with modern society, or even only relating to current trends. Vernacular language exists for the purpose of worship. The gospel message should be declared and understood by the people of God; thus, the message should be accurate. While vernacular (and even colloquial) lingo can be a vital tool to proclaim God’s story, accuracy should be prioritized.

            Vernacular language is not the issue. In fact, vernacular language helps everyone in a congregation understand the gospel better; yet, the full counsel of God should be understood rather than a partial counsel of God. While many believers might be tempted to write off the idioms used in corporate worship, what is said is vital to an accurate message. If one chooses to approach lingo as if it is not important, the risk is taken of submitting a false gospel.

One could teach that God helps those who help themselves without realizing that such a concept is nowhere in the Bible. It sounds spiritual to many people and could be considered biblical truth, but it is not. Even upon discovering its absence from the Bible, one could argue, “Well, you know what I mean,” or, “It is not a big deal.” Moreover, one could argue that such a concept could be true depending on the perspective. The overwhelming truth, however, is that the concept is not true irrespective of the perspective. Thus, to teach the concept is truth is to not only neglect the full counsel of God but to also teach a false gospel.

While my final statement here may seem drastic, it is the necessary approach of one who takes the gospel message seriously. Surely, believers can and should use understandable lingo and jargon; yet, jargon’s contribution to the ethos of corporate worship exists naturally. One’s theological beliefs and ideas are often embedded through the lingo of corporate worship. A starting point would be for Christians to move beyond embedded theology into deliberative theology. The proper mindset should also be continued, however, with worship leaders’ purposeful efforts to proclaim the full (and accurate) counsel of God in corporate worship, which could likely require a change in some of the lingo used. Lingo is often neglected in corporate worship; yet, to declare the full counsel of God, even vernacular communication must be accurate.

Lingo Matters Because Worship Is about God, Not Humanity

            The purpose of Christ’s incarnation is frequently understood in the context of a vertical relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride, the church. The proper relational understanding, however, should first and foremost be as a triune love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit and secondarily as a love relationship between Christ and the church. Out of love for the Son, the Father has gifted a people, namely the church; out of love for the Father, the Son is incarnate word and has given his life for the people whom he has been given and loves yet primarily out of love for the Father;[4] and out of love for both the Father and the Son, the Spirit calls, convicts, and guides the people of God. The vertical relationship between God and his people then is subsequent to and derived from the horizontal and triune love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. In this way, lingo matters because worship is about God, not humanity.

            The lingo employed in corporate worship should serve the purpose of worship, namely glorifying God. If it does not, i.e. if it exists to make people feel better, the point is missed. Lingo should not be random, unintentional, or undirect no matter how sincere we might consider a lack of preparation to be. Most people would usually not approach a judge or someone else of noble position and prestige without a plan. Language would not flippant but would rather be as clear and precise as possible. Why would we approach the creator differently (except that we approach him in an even more reverent manner)? While we should strive for understandability, we should also strive for accuracy.

            When God’s people realize that worship is not about them but about triune God, the perspective drastically changes. Human desires, understandings, and feelings become secondary or even negated when God’s pleasure becomes the goal of corporate worship. If worship leaders approach lingo in this manner, while understandability is still vital, precision is also important; thus, every word is not seen as semantical but rather as a crucial tool for proclaiming God’s story. Lingo then should be used yet never neglected.

The Issue Is Apathy

            Worship-related lingo did not become neglected overnight. Rather, where we are as the church has resulted from years of apathy, which I submit is the issue at large. Where pre-Reformation era clergymen regularly exercised legalistic language in such a way that the layperson rarely understood it and, thus, was not able to participate in corporate worship, modern churches have become lazy in their approach to lingo, i.e. it is common for ministers and laypersons alike to write off and criticize an intentional effort to theological precision in lingo. I will reemphasize the fact that understandable lingo is vital to the corporate worship experience. This is why we worship in the vernacular rather than another language such as Latin. I do not believe, however, that the Reformers’ intended trajectory of vernacular language was apathy but far from it. We can reasonably conclude that the church has veered off course.

            Faithful Christians have likely experienced apathetic lingo, although those who hold a high view of the language used in worship likely notice it more. Irreverent prayers that address triune God as Daddy[5] or the big guy in the sky might seem personal and sincere; yet, they are (unintentionally perhaps) discourteous at best. God is unquestionably a personal God to his people as both individuals and as a covenanted body; he is also, however, indisputably, sovereign, holy, and larger than a friend we can carry in our pockets like a small pet. Irreverent and thoughtless lingo should not be accepted by Christians, especially those in worship leadership.

            I recall a recent moment in corporate worship when I heard someone pray, “Father, thank you for dying for our sins.” On the surface, such a statement might seemingly make sense to many people. To many believers, it seems like a good thing to give thanks to the Father for dying for the sins of the church except for one neglected but vitally important fact; the Father did not die for anyone’s sins; that was the Son. A common response might be, “Well, they are both God,” or (again), “Well, you know what is meant.” Again, however, do I? A greater question would be this: does the one praying such a phrase understand what they are saying or understand trinitarian theology at all? This is thoughtless lingo. Years upon years of apathy have led us to where we are: a place of theological neglect in the lingo we use. We are here; now, in the power of the Holy Spirit, we must fix it.

The Solution Is Intentionality

            I do not intend to solely offer criticisms here but also solutions. The solution for neglected lingo then is intentionality. There is nothing inherently wrong with using the term, stage, instead of platform or to speak of the music during corporate worship as a setlist; it is not sinful. I would suggest, however, that such terms are reckless and exude unintended associations among believers and further contribute to the false equation of music and worship. Worship leaders should strive to cut such ties and teach the church that music is not equal to worship. This is one example of many; the point I submit, nonetheless, is that intentionality is fundamental. Each and every word used of the lingo used in the context of worship possesses meaning and furnishes either intended or unintended implications. Intentionality looks disparate between various worshiping contexts; yet, it is vital in each. A progressive free church holds the same responsibility of intentionality as a strict liturgical church. Leaders of worship should examine every word spoken in worship. If that means over-planning, then over-plan; if that means scripting, then script. Whatever it takes, may God’s people be faithful to his call, his glory, and the gospel message, God’s story, declared clearly and accurately in understandable lingo.

---

[1] Prior to the Protestant Reformation, liturgies were conducted and almost solely in Latin, a language that many laypeople could not fully understand. Thus, a transition to the vernacular was necessary and allow congregants to not only worship in their own language but to also understand the gospel message and story being proclaimed in corporate worship.

[2] Cecil Willis, “The Indestructability of the Bible,” Truth Magazine XIX 31, accessed April 25, 2017, http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume19/TM019211.html.

[3] Ibid.

[4] In the Garden of Gethsemane (among other places in Scripture), Jesus selflessly prays, “…not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

[5] While Abba was certainly a term employed by children to refer to their fathers in ancient Hebrew culture, it was also a term used by adults and, therefore, not equivalent of the English word, Daddy.